Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pTMlk-00021e-Pa for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:56:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pTMlj-0003al-1N for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:56:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pTMli-0003ac-N7 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:56:46 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pTMle-0006YT-7U for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:56:45 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id ek11so2831753edb.9 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 04:56:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=enterprisedb.com; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=d3I6SW3y0K72RNzxntZXY7zRoK9MUmxhSwx9AV3khEs=; b=iFBGeADtbxO+99yMOVru7PKr4nYasgQsBfVYyg9kQytLOL2XWJ66GyUIEs/Lsb45lm jr3/cyn7IBSaoSywCIbVstdixaJtjFl6suP3qt27bzBIykKqn4JyQswF0Y2ZJtC6Q0SS qXfufTIbr629IiJ2h0dIbMzpe5XbyHUgNaGaueSFpIU0sF9nnpDkca+2JI9/N6YtVGJf fkUwqPquEnenhGk1eFKuMgF9EnkX04GB3n6bPtaUA5MNYdPBe50VHVxZMv7Pg8RsjUzD y9+zUv/ieEBXuUTszORcnyQg7/GD2bCx8H1/9kzIb0atoakmBgOhcg6HiJw2GQsyOhtY x9LQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=d3I6SW3y0K72RNzxntZXY7zRoK9MUmxhSwx9AV3khEs=; b=yseQbWQqF3/HZA8ljkBCZAO2ocHSBf8qN8nJl6xg4+z1ivGI6CteX/nQem74uJaH/h 4pFEbjNYHPVAgkleTi+S7I+ie7Oas+pq5oT2F/q22VSp3PP2DQMe8npoJqu0N2PHtm11 /4iJnvpu6TKf9KkxWaWhoYxyUOf4+0mV9J68zPWluLHwdZ5Ipa6E7ZjbPc/6WAc9ZgoC 13ORp1yJA2a7hYJ5aOubh3HlNkpHKKGOmEfW4GCkcb/dkieHEOwIbLBjYzt1JIJldYpD Eqmqitlj3vEZns9jN3x419TWG0KGVqY+R//jkX3o6gM41ILq8rj3neX9TiKZIPeeawsT AH0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXTz1X940Bu6kQBoS8yu2Gcj+bEG3U2InomZ/xgbFVl92V3dyHZ nkq18J4ZqyBm8xKKiKHLgfvL7UUo/fKClHdBf+Hhvxz3zwIE5kIdq/P2wlAxjtIqxfTkjhnRyol icQGzNp91U6EE0zBecEetfFwGcGCFZCIGfKfm2kLRU55Ht8RQvJuUEECXUZL+rO+qp7q9YqNcVV ZmP0JOTYrw8Esef11axrSPfhDKVC5qFuf6xK1DbVbVz0AmglLKWpwIbOnTWkCxE8xY6ShABfM/O SszR9rv8qTRkreeGMKDFTOWxYFdlFPCsITYi+Z18MPf1o977endJEdy X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+qpXL8W3Re2xJgMTGJyk7oe5rZIYLhdfJq96h55vucHBF2JiYIVehNxIhznva8VuLyygs5Eg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6e8f:b0:878:4d11:f868 with SMTP id sh15-20020a1709076e8f00b008784d11f868mr6246709ejc.2.1676725000323; Sat, 18 Feb 2023 04:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.137.0.17] (ip-86-49-228-162.bb.vodafone.cz. [86.49.228.162]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fy5-20020a170906b7c500b008b112db78f9sm3351194ejb.51.2023.02.18.04.56.39 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Feb 2023 04:56:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <15f9bc32-db03-8f60-5fea-eb0b080a0619@enterprisedb.com> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:56:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Content-Language: en-US To: PostgreSQL Hackers From: Tomas Vondra Subject: occasional valgrind reports for handle_sig_alarm on 32-bit ARM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CLOUD-SEC-AV-Info: enterprisedb,google_mail,monitor X-CLOUD-SEC-AV-Sent: true X-Gm-Spam: 0 X-Gm-Phishy: 0 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Hi, I've been running a lot of valgrind tests on 32-bit arm recently, and from time to time I get a failure in handle_sig_alarm like this: ==13605== Use of uninitialised value of size 4 ==13605== at 0x88DA98: handle_sig_alarm (timeout.c:457) ==13605== by 0xFFFFFFFF: ??? ==13605== Uninitialised value was created by a heap allocation ==13605== at 0x8A0374: MemoryContextAllocExtended (mcxt.c:1149) ==13605== by 0x86A187: DynaHashAlloc (dynahash.c:292) ==13605== by 0x86CB07: element_alloc (dynahash.c:1715) ==13605== by 0x86A9E7: hash_create (dynahash.c:611) ==13605== by 0x8A1CE3: EnablePortalManager (portalmem.c:122) ==13605== by 0x8716CF: InitPostgres (postinit.c:806) ==13605== by 0x653F63: PostgresMain (postgres.c:4141) ==13605== by 0x5651CB: BackendRun (postmaster.c:4461) ==13605== by 0x564A43: BackendStartup (postmaster.c:4189) ==13605== by 0x560663: ServerLoop (postmaster.c:1779) ==13605== by 0x55FE27: PostmasterMain (postmaster.c:1463) ==13605== by 0x4107F3: main (main.c:200) ==13605== { Memcheck:Value4 fun:handle_sig_alarm obj:* } or (somewhat weird) ==23734== Use of uninitialised value of size 4 ==23734== at 0x88DDC8: handle_sig_alarm (timeout.c:457) ==23734== by 0xFFFFFFFF: ??? ==23734== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation ==23734== at 0x64CE2C: EndCommand (dest.c:167) ==23734== { Memcheck:Value4 fun:handle_sig_alarm obj:* } It might be a valgrind issue and/or false positive, but I don't think I've seen such failures before, so I'm wondering if this might be due to some recent changes? It's pretty rare, as it depends on the timing of the signal being just "right" (I wonder if there's a way to increase the frequency). regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company